Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 29, 2018
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	(13) Commitments and Contingencies Legal Proceedings We are involved from time to time in various legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of our business, including primarily commercial, product liability, employment and intellectual property claims. In accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States, we record a liability in our consolidated financial statements with respect to any of these matters when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated. If a loss is reasonably possible but not known or probable, and may be reasonably estimated, the estimated loss or range of loss is disclosed. With respect to currently pending legal proceedings, we have not established an estimated range of reasonably possible losses either because we believe that we have valid defenses to claims asserted against us or the proceeding has not advanced to a stage of discovery that would enable us to establish an estimate. We currently do not expect the outcome of pending legal proceedings to have a material effect on our consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows. Litigation, however, is inherently unpredictable, and it is possible that the ultimate outcome of one or more claims asserted against us could adversely impact our consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows. We expense legal costs as incurred. On January 12, 2015, Plaintiffs David and Katina Spade commenced a purported class action lawsuit in New Jersey state court against Sleep Number alleging that Sleep Number violated New Jersey consumer statutes by failing to provide to purchasing consumers certain disclosures required by the New Jersey Furniture Regulations. It is undisputed that plaintiffs suffered no actual damages or in any way relied upon or were impacted by the alleged omissions. Nonetheless, on behalf of a purported class of New Jersey purchasers of Sleep Number beds and bases, plaintiffs seek to recover a $100 statutory fine for each alleged omission, along with attorneys’ fees and costs. Sleep Number removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, which subsequently granted Sleep Number’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which certified two questions of law to the New Jersey Supreme Court relating to whether plaintiffs who have suffered no actual injury may bring claims. The New Jersey Supreme Court accepted the certified questions and on April 16, 2018, ruled in our favor on one of the two questions, holding that a consumer only has standing to bring a claim under the relevant statute if the consumer has been harmed by the defendant’s conduct. The Third Circuit remanded the case to the federal district court, which initially allowed the plaintiffs to file its proposed amended complaint, but thereafter rescinded its order and then denied Plaintiffs’ request to file the amended complaint. We plan to ask the Court to dismiss the case. On September 18, 2018, former Home Delivery Technician, Donald Cassels, and former Field Services Delivery Assistant, Jose Cadenas, filed suit in Superior Court in San Francisco County, California alleging representative claims on a purported class action basis under the California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act. While the two representative plaintiffs were in the Home Delivery workforce, the Complaint does not limit the purported plaintiff class to that group. The plaintiffs allege that Sleep Number failed or refused to adopt adequate practices, policies and procedures relating to wage payments, record keeping, employment disclosures, meal and rest breaks, among other claims, under California law. The plaintiffs purport to represent all former and current Sleep Number employees in the State of California aggrieved by the alleged practices. The Complaint seeks damages in the form of civil penalties and plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees, and expressly disclaims the recovery of any purported individual specific relief or underpaid wages. After Sleep Number raised issues with the plaintiffs’ choice of venue, the Court transferred venue from the Superior Court in San Francisco County to Superior Court in Fresno County. We intend to vigorously defend this matter. Consumer Credit Arrangements We refer customers seeking extended financing to certain third-party financiers (Card Servicers). The Card Servicers, if credit is granted, establish the interest rates, fees, and all other terms and conditions of the customer’s account based on their evaluation of the creditworthiness of the customer. As the receivables are owned by the Card Servicers, at no time are the receivables purchased or acquired from us. We are not liable to the Card Servicers for our customers’ credit defaults. Commitments As of December 29, 2018, we had $32 million of inventory purchase commitments. As part of the normal course of business, there are a limited number of inventory supply contracts that contain penalty provisions for failure to purchase contracted quantities. We do not currently expect any payments under these provisions. At December 29, 2018, we had entered into 46 lease commitments for future retail store locations. These lease commitments provide for minimum rentals over the next five to 10 years, which if consummated based on current cost estimates, would approximate $62 million over the initial lease term. The minimum rentals for these lease commitments have been included in the future minimum lease payments in Note 6, Leases.

Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 29, 2018

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

(13) Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

We are involved from time to time in various legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of our business, including primarily commercial, product liability, employment and intellectual property claims. In accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States, we record a liability in our consolidated financial statements with respect to any of these matters when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated. If a loss is reasonably possible but not known or probable, and may be reasonably estimated, the estimated loss or range of loss is disclosed. With respect to currently pending legal proceedings, we have not established an estimated range of reasonably possible losses either because we believe that we have valid defenses to claims asserted against us or the proceeding has not advanced to a stage of discovery that would enable us to establish an estimate. We currently do not expect the outcome of pending legal proceedings to have a material effect on our consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows. Litigation, however, is inherently unpredictable, and it is possible that the ultimate outcome of one or more claims asserted against us could adversely impact our consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows. We expense legal costs as incurred.

On January 12, 2015, Plaintiffs David and Katina Spade commenced a purported class action lawsuit in New Jersey state court against Sleep Number alleging that Sleep Number violated New Jersey consumer statutes by failing to provide to purchasing consumers certain disclosures required by the New Jersey Furniture Regulations. It is undisputed that plaintiffs suffered no actual damages or in any way relied upon or were impacted by the alleged omissions. Nonetheless, on behalf of a purported class of New Jersey purchasers of Sleep Number beds and bases, plaintiffs seek to recover a $100 statutory fine for each alleged omission, along with attorneys’ fees and costs. Sleep Number removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, which subsequently granted Sleep Number’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which certified two questions of law to the New Jersey Supreme Court relating to whether plaintiffs who have suffered no actual injury may bring claims. The New Jersey Supreme Court accepted the certified questions and on April 16, 2018, ruled in our favor on one of the two questions, holding that a consumer only has standing to bring a claim under the relevant statute if the consumer has been harmed by the defendant’s conduct. The Third Circuit remanded the case to the federal district court, which initially allowed the plaintiffs to file its proposed amended complaint, but thereafter rescinded its order and then denied Plaintiffs’ request to file the amended complaint. We plan to ask the Court to dismiss the case.

On September 18, 2018, former Home Delivery Technician, Donald Cassels, and former Field Services Delivery Assistant, Jose Cadenas, filed suit in Superior Court in San Francisco County, California alleging representative claims on a purported class action basis under the California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act. While the two representative plaintiffs were in the Home Delivery workforce, the Complaint does not limit the purported plaintiff class to that group. The plaintiffs allege that Sleep Number failed or refused to adopt adequate practices, policies and procedures relating to wage payments, record keeping, employment disclosures, meal and rest breaks, among other claims, under California law. The plaintiffs purport to represent all former and current Sleep Number employees in the State of California aggrieved by the alleged practices. The Complaint seeks damages in the form of civil penalties and plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees, and expressly disclaims the recovery of any purported individual specific relief or underpaid wages. After Sleep Number raised issues with the plaintiffs’ choice of venue, the Court transferred venue from the Superior Court in San Francisco County to Superior Court in Fresno County. We intend to vigorously defend this matter.

Consumer Credit Arrangements

We refer customers seeking extended financing to certain third-party financiers (Card Servicers). The Card Servicers, if credit is granted, establish the interest rates, fees, and all other terms and conditions of the customer’s account based on their evaluation of the creditworthiness of the customer. As the receivables are owned by the Card Servicers, at no time are the receivables purchased or acquired from us. We are not liable to the Card Servicers for our customers’ credit defaults.

Commitments

As of December 29, 2018, we had $32 million of inventory purchase commitments. As part of the normal course of business, there are a limited number of inventory supply contracts that contain penalty provisions for failure to purchase contracted quantities. We do not currently expect any payments under these provisions. At December 29, 2018, we had entered into 46 lease commitments for future retail store locations. These lease commitments provide for minimum rentals over the next five to 10 years, which if consummated based on current cost estimates, would approximate $62 million over the initial lease term. The minimum rentals for these lease commitments have been included in the future minimum lease payments in Note 6, Leases.